B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Learned APP Shri KT Dave waives service of Rule for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE applicant-accused has filed this application through jail for releasing him on regular bail during pendency and final disposal of his main Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2002 on the ground that he is an innocent in this case; still he has been convicted by the trial Court. He was studying in higher secondary at the time of the alleged incident. He has got old parents and except him, there is no other male member in his family to look after them. His brother-Amedaji, co-accused in this case is also in jail, therefore, he may be released on bail. ( 3 ) LEARNED APP Shri Dave vehemently opposed this application on the ground that this is a case of triple murder where three innocent boys were murdered and the trial Court after relying upon the evidence of as many as three witnesses convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and that while admitting Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2002 filed by co-accused-Amedaji, brother of the applicant-accused, the Division Bench of this Court rejected the prayer for bail of accused-Amedaji only on 25. 11. 2002. Therefore, bail should not be granted to the present applicant-accused. ( 4 ) WE find lot of substance in the submissions made by learned APP Shri Dave. It is true that separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2002 filed by the present applicant-accused through jail was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court also on 25. 11. 2002, but in absence of any prayer for bail, the Court had not passed any formal order rejecting the prayer for bail. Under the circumstances, there is no question of entertaining the present bail application of the applicant-accused. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, this application is required to be rejected and it is rejected. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting, we must state that now new tendency has developed amongst the accused and their counsel to first get their appeals admitted and after sometime file application for bail on the ground that their appeal is admitted. Such practice is required to be not only strongly deprecated but also discouraged. It may amount to selecting Court, which is highly improper. Such practice is required to be not only strongly deprecated but also discouraged. It may amount to selecting Court, which is highly improper. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. .